A Constitution made only for a moral and religious people

 

 

Freedom requires morality and virtue

The men involved in the founding of the United States believed that morality and virtue were not only important to our form of government but necessary. The Constitution they created provides individuals with tremendous personal freedom. But the founders understood that governing a very large group of free individuals would require the boundaries and restraints that are a part of genuine virtue and morality.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Benjamin Franklin

 

Two wrongs do not make something right

 

Is keeping a promise a moral issue?

It's not wise to act morally superior to others

Can we have a beneficial moral discussion without having an objective source of morality?

Some Pastoral Advice For Target In Handling Their Crisis

By now most folks know that Target retailers have had a serious security breach that could affect as many as 45 million customers.

Target is a business and therefore their handling of this situation will involve certain business and economic responsibilities on their part.  That is understandable.

However, the credit card security of millions of their customers is at stake in this situation and that means there are not just business and economic concerns at play in this matter.  There are moral concerns.  In other words, “right” and “wrong” are involved.

I realize this can come across sounding “preachy” and that’s not really my intent.  My intent is to point out that right and wrong still matter, even for a business, in situations like this.  There are reports in the media suggesting that many customers are upset with the ineffective manner in which Target is handling the situation.  There are complaints of trouble contacting the company through its website and call centers.

It is important for Target to do everything possible to assist these customers who have been affected by this crisis.  Even if though it will involve some financial pain.  This is difficult because it could, obviously, be argued that Target has been victimized, as well.  But Target has the most to gain and the most to lose in this matter and so they must be the leader. 

Clearly, this is not pleasant for the retailer, however, difficulties of this nature are an opportunity for a company to demonstrate that they really are unique and special.  It is not an enjoyable opportunity but it is an opportunity, nevertheless, for them to demonstrate that they really care about their relationship with their customers.  (Most businesses will claim that this is a key concern.  Target has an unusual opportunity to show that this is true.)

This could, actually, in the long run be beneficial to Target’s brand perception—if they handle it properly.

If it sounds like I’m against Target in this matter, please know that I’m not.  I hope they come through this crisis effectively and successfully.  But that means they must do the right thing even though it will probably mean some short-term financial difficulty.

Pastor Dan Marler

Oak Lawn, IL

Pursuit of Morals

*Note: This entry first appeared as a “Letter To The Editor” in the Southtown Star newspaper. In the published piece a couple of lines were edited out. I am including the edited lines here. This is my response to an editorial by the editors of the newspaper which ran on Sept. 7, 2008, entitled: “Radical Change Needed To Fix Societal Woes”.


Pursuit of Morals

I appreciated your editorial “Radical Change Needed To Fix Societal Woes”, September 7, 2008. You are certainly right that there are problems of violence in our culture that have morality at their root. And I join with you in admitting that these are not issues that have a quick and easy fix.

One of the questions that the editorial raised, for me, was “how do we inculcate and encourage good morals?” When we read that more120 people were shot and killed in Chicago this summer, it’s hard to avoid the issue of morality.

I would like to suggest that the inculcation and pursuit of morals will always require that truths about ourselves must be honestly faced—truths that will not necessarily be comfortable. As a culture, we seem to be pretty big on comfort and trying to ensure that no one ever feels guilty. I admit that I find that comfort-seeking tendency in myself, as well. However, wrestling, personally, with moral truth will often make us uncomfortable. This is a form of discomfort we must be willing to endure. Most of us would agree that it is a form of discomfort which is preferable to the discomfort of a bullet.

Also, morals, by definition, have to do with right and wrong and the pursuit of that which is right. This will mean that those who hold up standards of right and wrong—parents, teachers, clergy, and other leaders—should not be quickly and thoughtlessly labeled intolerant and small minded. Morality, in our culture, is sometimes actually discouraged because those who would champion standards of right and wrong fear being labeled as repressive, backward, and other names that are even less pleasant.

Also, some seem to have great disdain for the mention of God and/or religion along with the subject of morality. And it is understandable in a religiously pluralistic society that introducing God into the discussion could heat up the debate. However, the founders of our country assumed that our morality would involve God and that without that basis it would not work.

This is what George Washington said in his “Farewell Address” to our new young nation: “And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

It can be difficult for naturalistic and materialistic worldviews to provide a solid philosophical basis for morality because they ultimately fall back to the kind of relativism that is part of the moral confusion that your editorial correctly laments.

So, even though I know references to God and religion can, in some ways, make the discussion of morality more difficult, the alternative seems to be to continue in the direction we are currently heading.

The obvious question is: How’s that working?

Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL